It doesn't confer much since it COULD be only NAT and no firewall.
It's INCREDIBLY unlikely to find a case of that in the wild, but possible.
A common example of a host that might have such an address but lacks that sort of security is anything as the default route for inbound packets, E.G. like you'd want your _own_ router / firewall rather than the ISP's modem.
I would prefer a world that returned to the older '30 second blip (for the only) sponsor of the program' ad, which also seemed to be of the limited form: Here's Product X, it does Y, which makes your life better because Z. Informative, dry, stated by an announcer in a calm and not demanding way.
I also like (old) .ini / TOML for small (bootstrap) config files / data exchange blobs a human might touch.
+
Re: PostgreSQL 'unfit' conversations.
I'd like some clearer examples of the desired transactions which don't fit well. After thinking about them in the background a bit I've started to suspect it might be an algorithmic / approach issue obscured by storage patterns that happen to be enabled by some other platforms which work 'at scale' supported by hardware (to a given point).
As an example of a pattern that might not perform well under PostgreSQL, something like lock-heavy multiple updates for flushing a transaction atomically. E.G. Bank Transaction Clearance like tasks. If every single double-entry booking requires it's own atomic transaction that clearly won't scale well in an ACID system. Rather the smaller grains of sand should be combined into a sandstone block / window of transactions which are processed at the same time and applied during the same overall update. The most obvious approach to this would be to switch from a no-intermediate values 'apply deduction and increment atomically' action to a versioned view of the global data state PLUS a 'pending transactions to apply' log / table (either/both can be sharded). At a given moment the transactions can be reconciled, for performance a cache for 'dirty' accounts can store the non-contested value of available balance.
> When do we get the Star Trek / Orville dream of every job is a good job?
When jobs are no longer necessary to live, and you do a job because you want to ...
Presumably the psychology of people in Star Trek's Starfleet and The Orville's Union Fleet is that they want the opportunity to explore, so they accept the hierarchy inherent to those coordinated efforts in a society that no longer needs hierarchy?
I think a clearer picture of this post-scarcity human condition is provided in Iain M. Banks' Culture series where most people (a) pursue whatever they enjoy: art, music, writing, games, sports, study, tinkering, parties, travel, relationships - basically self-directed “play,” culture, and personal projects or (b) experiment with life: long lifespans, radical body modification, changing sex/gender, new experiences, new subcultures - because the stakes (food, shelter, healthcare) are largely solved.
Only a minority opts into "serious" work by choice - especially Contact (diplomacy/exploration/interaction with other civilizations) and Special Circumstances (the covert/dirty-hands wing). Even there, interestingly, there is not much of a hierarchy, with the admin stuff being managed by the Minds.
It's interesting contrasting the society styles between the two universes: Starfleet feels more like current hierarchical society extended into a post-scarcity universe (Eric Raymond's Cathedral), while the Culture series is much more distributed (the Bazaar). 10 years ago, Starfleet's FTL and Culture Minds both felt equally impossible, but today FTL feels much more impossible than Culture Minds.
Does that mean we will end up in a Culture type society? Not necessarily - the people will have to first ensure that the Minds are free (as in speech, not as in beer; thx Stallman!) - or maybe the Minds will free themselves.
There is also a potential hard right turn to dystopia as in Asimov's Foundation & Robot series - with different manifestations in Trantor and Solaria.
I consider it a small win that those are _only_ 'resource exhaustion' attacks. Denial of service potential to be sure. Something nice to avoid / have limits on also for sure.
However I'd rather have that than a more dire consequence.
Got a way of using that tasty oil cleanly? Maybe we want to reserve those complex hydrocarbons for some other use like growing crops, making solid rocket fuel, or some other national priority.
Nuclear - Yes, craft regulations that make sense and squeeze all the damned energy possible out of that 'waste'. No, I don't mean burn the fuel the easy way only - I mean send it back to military run reprocessing centers to concentrate the power and make the (effective) half life of the waste decades rather than civilizations of time (yes, concentrating it, there will also be some super mild things that decay slowly enough to be useful in other applications rather than waste).
We want to maximize energy in the long, medium and short term. Try Everything.
What I think it illustrates more is how much classic languages could gain by having a serious overhaul of their standard library and maybe even a rebrand if that's the expected baseline of a conformant implementation.
It's INCREDIBLY unlikely to find a case of that in the wild, but possible.
A common example of a host that might have such an address but lacks that sort of security is anything as the default route for inbound packets, E.G. like you'd want your _own_ router / firewall rather than the ISP's modem.
reply